My best guess here is that the animals are being banished because they ate forbidden vegetables and nuts. But is this possible to figure out without the throwaway panel showing the ferrety-looking creature eating a carrot? Otherwise we just see a squirrel eating an acorn, which itself isn’t enough to show a pattern.
And if this is the correct interpretation (which of course it might not be), what in God’s name were the animals supposed to have eaten?
Just as an aside, I’ve always been impressed that the Tree of Knowledge taught Adam and Eve that they had different naughty bits they needed to cover.
Comics I Don't Understand 
I don’t think the vegetables and such are “forbidden” in the same way as Eve’s apple. It’s just the same quandary that every gardener has trying to keep critters from snatching your veggies. God of course has a better way of dealing with them than the sprays and fences we humans have to resort to.
Makes sense to me without the throwaway panel, the animals depicted are often considered to be garden pests. The possum holding the carrot reinforces that, but I don’t think it is necessary.
Giving God the demeanor of a frustrated human gardener in response to Original Sin is a solid gag.
Here’s my question: Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden because they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and hence knew the difference between good and evil. Well, if they didn’t know the difference between good and evil, how were they to know that they shouldn’t eat of the fruit?
“And if this is the correct interpretation (which of course it might not be), what in God’s name were the animals supposed to have eaten?”
The same could be asked of Adam & Eve . . . it’s not like there were grocery stores or restaurants or even food trucks in the area.
@Usual John – that’s always my thought. Obviously, God had told them not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, but prior to eating said fruit how were they supposed to know they should not disobey God, or that the concept of “disobedience” was even a thing? Anything God was saying at that point was just blah blah blah Ginger blah blah (see Gary Larson) with no moral force, by the design of God. It always struck me as an unfair loading of the dice, and a thin sin to base a lot of guilt-shaming onto.
Andréa, as I recall God does say something along the lines of “Look, guys, I left you a whole smörgåsbord here. My only rule is you don’t eat from this one particular tree. Do you think you can remember that one thing?”
So of course at that point the Serpent is totally unnecessary to the story, because obviously Adam and Eve are going to be obsessed with that tree.
As I read that story, banishment from the Garden of Eden isn’t specifically a punishment for disobedience (although obviously it’s causally related). The punishments for disobedience are the pain of agriculture, the pain of childbirth, and not having limbs. The banishment is a pre-emptive measure because God is worried that they’ll eat from the tree of life and live forever. I suppose other animals eating from the tree of life might also be a problem.
I get this… and I don’t get this. God’s banishing Adam and Eve for the reason we know and either he’s banishing the animals for normal reasons that they are garden pests … but why is that funny?… the animals and disobedient humans are really completely different stories why should they be combined? …. or he is banishing them because, being pests they ate from the tree of knowledge too in which case… the universe and reality as we know it would be utterly different.
woozy: I think it’s funny because the stories shouldn’t be combined. The two causes for banishment don’t really fit together, so combining them produces a humorous incongruity. YMMV.
Originally in the Garden of Eden the lion lay down with the lamb. According to creationists, eating the fruit didn’t just lead God to damn all humans in perpetuity to hell, it also spoiled the world, including all the animals under Adam’s dominion, and introduced the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ‘You ate my fruit, so I’ll torture your dog.’ Naturally God didn’t want those nasty beasts in his garden any more. They now knew about sex too and would have soon overrun it.
If you have no knowledge of Good and Evil, you can have no concept of rules or disobedience. God is just a passive-aggressive jerk. This was akin to leaving a four-year old in a room with a bowl full of M&M’s and telling him to not eat any and then sending him to his room forever when he ate one.
“The two causes for banishment don’t really fit together, so combining them produces a humorous incongruity. YMMV.”
It’s incongruous, but is a humorless incongruity. Like asking someone to go to the store for a stick of butter, a loaf of bread, a box of nails, and a dozen egg. It incongruous because grocery stores don’t usually sell nails; you usually go to a hardware store for those. It incongruous but I’m not sure that will get many laughs at your next party.
And so was born – “Maybe we should go out for dinner.”
woozy: Well, I did say YMMV. And apparently it does.
One tiny aspect no one has mentioned: I think the cartoon plays with the idea of a “garden” of Eden. Once the world was imperfect, of course God had to expel all the pests from it.
” It always struck me as an unfair loading of the dice, and a thin sin to base a lot of guilt-shaming onto.”
He also hardened Pharaoh’s heart when Moses came to ask for freedom, so He’d have an opportunity to show off some creative divine wrath. Why didn’t he just soften Pharaoh’s heart instead, so that he let’s Moses and his people go without a fuss? Because don’t question Him or His purpose, that’s why.
The real reason why it’s hard to reconcile God’s instructions and punishment with Adam and Eve’s state of innocence is that YHWH was not an omnibenevolent deity in the minds of the authors.
God knows all things so he knew Adam and Eve would disobey him. He created everything exactly to his will so he intended for humans to have a rebellious streak that compels them to make rules. And then he got all mad when they did what he created them to do.
I say this in the nicest possible way, but God can really be a d*ck sometimes
There was that time he drowned everyone too.
@ SingaporeBill – Yes, but that story is recorded by a number of different cultures and religions, so presumably more than just one god was responsible.
James Pollack – Children (and other people) do not appreciate what they get too easily.